[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [ga] Re: Formal Attribution of Identity for everyday emailsources?Yes please
The point of the request for strong authentication is that there is currently no
way that identity can be proven on the internet on a personal basis, other than
statistically by the cryptanalytic techniques of semantic and textual analysis.
(these for example, show roughly that Brian Hollingsworth, Jeff Williams, DNSIPV6
and Louis Touton, all from the same Dallas dial-up as you know, are all probably
the same person, but also indicate conversely (not necessarily conclusively) that
different people write Jeff Williams at different times and, for example, different
people appear to write Ken Stubbs, Roberto Gaetano and Kent Crispin at different
times) There are other surprise results.
This is a one to many and many to one philosophical problem.which recurs in many
cases. Now assume that you have supplied to PSI an indication that their IP was
used to transmit the offending message. As it happens I have no account with
PSI-NET, but let's assume that I have.
You ask PSI to block this account and they agree, but find, it's a computer in a
bar in Gex, used by many people. You inform the French police, they lay in wait and
catch someone, a red-headed, poorly-dressed American citizen called Jeffrey
Williams, born in Kansas City in 1949 or thereabouts.
Jeff captured for impersonating himself?
Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:
> At 21:00 20.01.00 +0100, Mark Measday wrote:
> >Thanks, but a reservation.
> >There cannot be two sets of rules, one for those of us in Dallas and another
> >for the rest of the world.
> >1. You say there are no rules in force yet. Therefore, you cannot submit this
> >instance until those rules have come into force. Yet, you forward something to
> >PSI, as IP address operator. A clear procedural anomaly, no?
> If (as is common) sending forged email is against the AUP of PSI, this is
> notifying them of an user violating their AUP.
> >2. what is the nature of the alleged abuse? It could not have been
> >spoofing, as the email does not match the name of any list subscriber. It
> >cannot have been spam, as there is no solicitation. It cannot be an
> >offence to write to the list under an assumed name, as many of the list do
> >that. It cannot be fraud, as Mr Mueller has yet to represent himself to my
> >lawyers. Unless an offence can be found, there is no offence.
> Sending forged email.
> BTW, Jeff Williams is a subscriber to the GA list, which got a copy of the
> >I repeat my question:
> > > Where is the Serjeant-at-Arms to provide the appropriate jurisprudence?
> > >
> >Best regards,
> >Mark Measday
> There is no sergeant-at-arms (yet). Just us.
> Harald A
> Harald Tveit Alvestrand, EDB Maxware, Norway
The contents of this e-mail are confidential to the ordinary user of
the e-mail address to which it was addressed and may also be
privileged. If you are not the addressee of this e-mail you may not
copy, forward, disclose or otherwise use it or any part of it in any
form whatsoever. If you have received this e-mail in error please
e-mail the sender by replying to this message.